"The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation by surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard. Their mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded." ~ Vance Packard

In Defense of Incrementalism

In any political or social philosophy, there are those who believe that they can achieve everything they want all at once or in a series of large jumps, and those who believe that broad-based change should be (or is most rationally) achieved through incremental changes. The advocate of incremental change, I believe, is the more pragmatic of the two and more likely to see advances towards his or her larger goals. Furthermore, incrementalism is more compatible with a voluntary society. Non-incremental change inevitably requires intrusive central planning, compulsory work systems, or violence to bring everyone immediately in line with its goals.

Most decisions made by individuals and groups are made incrementally, because that is the method that has demonstrated the most consistent success. If your goal was to build a house, for example, you could not simply blink a house into existence complete and all at once. You would first need a plan for what you wanted at the end, and then you would need to take steps to realize that plan. Funding needs to be raised. Carpenters, plumbers, and electricians need to be hired. Raw materials need to be purchased. A frame needs to be erected, foundations poured, etc. Each step in the process is an incremental change toward your end goal.

Fundamentally changing society or government is a much more complicated process than building a house, yet there are still those who insist that they can blink their ideal society or government into existence. They forget that there are many factions of people with their own ideas in competition with them. Some of these factions are large, some small, some with vast resources, and there are some that wield considerable political or social clout. None of these factions are going to just step aside and allow you to remake the world into your ideal, especially if that ideal fundamentally conflicts with their own.

As an idealist, Murray Rothbard often fell into this trap. In his article “The Case for Radical Idealism,” Rothbard criticized what he called “gradualism,” or the strategy of “concentrating solely on a gradual whittling away of State power,” as opposed to the radical and instant abolition of the State. By confining themselves to gradual and practical programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, he argued, the gradualists “are in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective.” As an example, he described a case in which a libertarian politician became lost in opportunism and abandoned his principles for practical reforms. Instead, Rothbard claimed libertarians needed to be more like socialists, who have “pulled” mainstream America in their direction by maintaining a consistent and radical position.

There are two problems with these arguments: 1) Rothbard’s example of the politician who abandoned his principles is entirely anecdotal. There is no reason that a different politician (or any other individual) could not hold an overall goal in mind and still not work gradually, step by step, toward that goal. 2) Rothbard’s characterization of the march of socialism in America is wholly inaccurate. Those committed socialists and communists who have pushed for revolutionary change in the United States have not advanced their agenda at all, while every adoption of the socialist program has come about through gradual steps made by parties perceived to be less radical by the mainstream. The success of socialism in the United States, such as it is, is an argument for incrementalism, not against it.

Rothbard held up two examples that he believed exemplified spokesmen for direct, radical change: Leonard E. Read and William Lloyd Garrison. Leonard E. Read, economist and the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, advocated for the immediate and total abolition of price and wage controls after World War II. William Lloyd Garrison advocated for the immediate abolition of slavery in the United States during the 1830s. The problem is that Leonard E. Read’s rhetorical grandstanding did nothing to abolish price and wage controls, and although slavery was eventually abolished through radical means, it was at the expense of more than 600,000 lives. Even though a more incremental approach would have prolonged the injustice of slavery, it is arguable that it would have achieved the same result in the long run while avoiding all that destruction and bloodshed.

“To really pursue the goal of liberty, the libertarian must desire it attained by the most effective and speediest means available,” Rothbard argued, but Rothbard never bothered to explain what those means would be, especially in the face of the millions of people who depend upon and support the State. How could the State be immediately abolished without a violent backlash? Newton’s third law of motion is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that is just as true when applied to political or social change. In order to preserve the new status quo, a reaction in the opposite direction needs to be prevented. That is why sudden, revolutionary change is almost always accompanied by prison camps, compulsory labor, or mass murder. Incremental change, on the other hand, is a gradual, peaceful change that mitigates the effects of Newton’s law. Therefore, incrementalism is not only more rational, but it is much more compatible with the philosophy of liberty.

Michael Kleen is the Editor-in-Chief of Untimely Meditations, publisher of Black Oak Presents, and proprietor of Black Oak Media. He holds a M.A. in History and a M.S. in Education, and is the author of Statism and its Discontents, a collection of columns on the topics of Statism, liberty, and their conflict. His columns have appeared in a variety of publications and websites, including Strike-the-Root.

I agree, although I would say that sudden changes would (not could) spark violent reaction from statists - I see it as a foregone conclusion. You see what means they use now to stay in power, imagine what they would do if that power was REALLY threatened.

Good column, but I still feel that any coherent, incrementalist movement would ultimately pose a threat to absolute liberty.

For one, the means of shifting government would require—at least of those directly involved—an association with the current, unjust government. This isn't an impediment of practicality, but it would form an ethical barrier for anyone who would feel compelled to actually guide such a movement toward Statelessness. Anyone available for this would either be compelled to commit a moral infraction, or would themselves be committed to a reduction, rather than eventual elimination of, the State.

Also, especially when considering the above, there's the risk of accidentally establishing a palatable, minimal State. If the idea of "good government" were to gain ground, the liberty movement would face even greater impediments to total future success.

Great column, Michael. And I think you've actually described the most effective approach while you were discussing Rothbard and socialism -- incrementalists got the changes made, one at a time, by pushing bite-size changes the public could first warm up to and then accept as policy, while the revolutionaries who advocated immediate and total change kept the ultimate goal in play and in enough of the public mind to insure that each incremental "success" led to the NEXT increment instead of being seen as an end it itself.

Rothbard quoted above: “To really pursue the goal of liberty, the libertarian must desire it attained by the most effective and speediest means available,”...

I came to see years ago how to do that: declare myself sovereign. Now -- immediately.

And no, I did not go into any of the white man's bureaus to "file" paperwork with him or anybody else. (http://lewrockwell.com/nestmann/nestmann29.1.html) Blasphemy! The chicken farmer does not go to the fox den to ask permission to free himself from foxdom so as to protect his crop from harm. He simply begins to build the bulwark of defense, as did I.

Did that change my "relationship" with the white man? No it didn't -- not from his prospective anyway. He still looks upon me as a "citizen" (read: subservient subject). I can often use his supercilious ignorance to my own advantage, however; and I began to look at him for the gangster he was -- far more infectious than the robber who tries to hold me up at gunpoint. At least he knows what he is. Not so the government gangster.

All too often the thrust of arguments on "libertarian" websites and forums is, "how can we change society" or "how do we make an effective 'libertarian nation'". We don't. I have. Mine. I am a sovereign state.

I'm 75. Too old to go tryin' to change you or anybody else. Of course I'm writing here and you're reading what I'm writing, so you might say I'm attempting to persuade you to do or not do a thing. But we all know I'm preachin' to the choir here -- we're pretty much all in general agreement at STR.

And I'm not trying to disagree with you, Michael, sofar as "incrementalism" goes. I sort of gently sided with those asking Tso to go a little easy on the minarchists or ministatists (while in full agreement with his premise). Mainly because I did not come out of my mama's womb an anarchist, and there are quite likely not a few "tea partiers" and the like who will be solid STR folks in a year or so.

For me it was a slow, painful process, fraught with a lot of what they're now calling "cognitive dissonance". Last time I voted was 1964, for Barry Goldwater. Prior to that I had been an ultra liberal (NEA, TSEA -- the Texas version of a teachers' union); a John Bircher type "conservative" -- you name it, I've landed there at one time or another.

So I've been about as incremental as they come. But I am what and where I am. And I hope to grow from here and not get fallow just because I'm in my dotage.

Off topic, I just had my 23rd grandchild this morning (a boy), #24 due in August. I won't announce my great grandchildren. They make me look old.

"...there are still those who insist that they can blink their ideal society or government into existence"

Who says this? Nobody I ever heard or read. I think this is known as a "straw man". :-)

"Rothbard’s example of the politician who abandoned his principles is entirely anecdotal."

So Lord Acton was wrong? Power does not corrupt?

"The success of socialism in the United States, such as it is, is an argument for incrementalism, not against it."

I don't see what the dispute is. Freedom can clearly be (and usually is) lost incrementally, but it can also be lost all at once. Freedom can clearly be gained incrementally (typically when individuals move away from tyranny), and also all at once via revolution or secession. It's not an "either-or".

As to slavery, are you suggesting the South was not entitled to secede, because that was not incremental? How about the states seceding from Britain? Clearly, secession can be done well or poorly; many factors count toward its success (e.g. the South should not have attacked Ft. Sumter).

"How could the State be immediately abolished without a violent backlash?"

If the states started ignoring the federal government en masse. There are many ways.

"Newton’s third law of motion is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that is just as true when applied to political or social change."

False analogy; physics is not politics.

Here is a data point for you, Michael. I created and ran the Wyoming Liberty Index (wyominglibertyindex.info) for several years. Every year, in a state chosen because it had the best chance to be made free through incremental change, there were about 4 times as many laws passed harming liberty, as there were helping it. Free State Wyoming (freestatewyoming.org) was created to attract freedom-lovers to Wyoming; its results are extremely modest, certainly not enough to turn around the legislative attack on liberty. Wyoming is about the best chance for incrementalism to work in the country (with the possible exception of New Hampshire), yet incrementalism is not working there. Soon, all that will be left is more radical change.

You'd better polish up your shooting skills. Or at least, start reading Gandhi (who was also not an incrementalist).

I'm not sure how incremental change can be implemented. Does someone have some concrete examples of political action that can be or has been launched that increases freedom? Tax cuts? That just means some other tax will have to increase to cover the shortfall, or more dollars will need to be printed, or more credit will need to be extended. With fiat currency, the money will come into existence somehow. The government does not need to tax dollar number one from the population in order to remain operational. They make the stuff.

Most people, according to a good number of polls, objected to the new health care legislation. Did that stop it from passing? Perhaps most people want the troops out of the Middle East. Were the bailouts supported by the masses?

The citizenry has just about zero control over anything, it seems to me. But again, if anyone has some concrete examples of incrementalism toward freedom in action that actually cannot be end-arounded, I'd be interested in hearing about them.

And if Ron Paul were to become president and cut back government even a fraction of what he would like, the backlash from the entitled citizenry (teachers, post office, military, etc.) who would lose their goodies would pretty much end the political libertarian movement for good. You can't get elected if you aren't popular, and no one wants to give up what they have if they can at all help it. Many bleat about wanting a smaller, Constitutional government, but few of them will actually give up any government goodies to get there.

So as far as concrete actions instead of vague ideological slogans go,

"...Rothbard never bothered to explain what those means would be, especially in the face of the millions of people who depend upon and support the State."

Now the incrementalist has the opportunity and platform here to explain his means to the end of freedom in the face of millions of people who depend upon and support the State.

"I'm not sure how incremental change can be implemented. Does someone have some concrete examples of political action that can be or has been launched that increases freedom?"

Well, this may be going a bit overboard, to imagine that freedom can NEVER be increased legislatively, in any respect. I think that would be a very hard case to make.

It's not necessary to make it. The problem is not that in one particular or another, incrementalism fails; it is that in overall freedom, it fails. That failure is WHY we have resets on occasion. People finally can't put up with the crap any more. They toss the old worldview and start acting significantly different. Usually that significant difference is something other than begging for crumbs from the legislative table.

In theory, an incremental change through legislation is possible. But it isn't likely. Freedom will come from education, by changing hearts and minds through sites like this. Changing hearts and minds will result in paradigm shifts.

How did Orwell put it? "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever." Now take a stroll through the cop-thuggery videos pockmarking YouTube. That future is now.

If that's my face on the receiving end, I don't want the boot removed in increments. I want the cop to pull back a bloody, footless stub!

"Many bleat about wanting a smaller, Constitutional government, [or no government] but few of them will actually give up any government goodies to get there." ~ tzo [Bracketed information added to quote]